Charles J. Paul, Thomas S. Gruca, Paul G. Morrison, George M. Ghareeb, Sang Hee Kim, and Bradley A. Erickson

OBJECTIVE 

To determine whether selection of treatment modality for urinary stone disease differs between primary and outreach healthcare centers, and if patient rurality predicts treatment modality.

 METHODS 

We retrospectively evaluated Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) procedural data from the Iowa Office of Statewide Clinical Education Programs (OSCEP) and Iowa Hospital Association (IHA) databases from 2007 to 2014. Geographical data was used to analyze travel metrics and patient proximity to sites of stone treatment. Rural-urban commuting area (RUCA) codes were used to characterize patient rurality. Chi-square tests and t tests were used to compare ESWL and URS patients, and multilevel logistic regression model was used to assess influence of treatment setting on surgical modality.

 RESULTS

 A total of 18,831 stone procedures were performed by urologists in Iowa on patients from Iowa (10,495 URS; 8336 ESWL). Around 2630 procedures occurred at outreach centers. Ureteroscopy comprised 59.7% of procedures at primary centers, but only 31.2% at outreach centers. On multilevel analysis, outreach location was associated with 2.236 OR toward ESWL (P <.001). Individual physician treatment patterns accounted for 32% of treatment variation. Patient rurality was not significantly associated with treatment modality as an independent factor (P = .879). 

CONCLUSIONS 

Wide variation exists in urolithiasis treatment modality selection between outreach and primary centers. Outreach locations perform a significantly higher frequency of ESWL compared to URS, and much of the variation in treatment selection (32%) arises from individual physician practice patterns. UROLOGY 00: 1−7, 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc